Amazon Joins Companies Arguing US Labor Board is Unconstitutional (reuters.com) 122
Amazon has joined rocket maker SpaceX and grocery chain Trader Joe's in claiming that a U.S. labor agency's in-house enforcement proceedings violate the U.S. Constitution, as the retail giant faces scores of cases claiming it interfered with workers' rights to organize. From a report: Amazon in a filing made with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Thursday said it plans to argue that the agency's unique structure violates the company's right to a jury trial. The company also said that limits on the removal of administrative judges and the board's five members, who are appointed by the president, are unconstitutional. The filing came in a pending case accusing Amazon of illegally retaliating against workers at a warehouse in the New York City borough of Staten Island, where employees voted to unionize in 2022.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Enjoy your slave labor conditions from your David vs. Golith against big employer. Especially since throwing rocks is against the law.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rack (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't like your job? Get a better job. Don't take it out on your coworkers and employers.
Ignorance like this will welcome a business world reduced to 100 mega-corps worth trillions who control everything, and a couple billion starving unemployed humans as a result.
Don't assume a different employer is the answer for employment abuse. Unions represent the last of employee protections, which are going extinct because of what Greed wants. Not sure why you are so amendment in defending Greed, as if that corruption represents some kind of proven purist or savior.
Re: (Score:3)
Because "greed" is a bogeyman stand-in for the thing that the politicos and grandstanding demagogues are really after: individual human agency and individual choice.
Tell you what; I'll believe this bullshit when you can prove it with capitalist history.
Otherwise, you're nothing but a fucking corrupt salesperson.
The answer to "100 megacorps" isn't 101 megacops where the 101st one is the seui or the uaw; it's breaking up the big ones and disincentivizing large mergers and acquisitions through robust antitrust enforcement and careful design of the tax code.
The actual answer for this, was long before we were talking about a corrupt capitalist world about to be reduced to 100 mega-corps, because nothing you've said will prevent my prediction. Nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
> Go move to Cuba
Reducing some bad aspects of capitalism doesn't imply replacing them with bad aspects of socialism.
> or any of the few other places clinging to leftist demagoguery as their organizing principle.
The economic health of countries that are under crippling sanctions are only proof that sanctions can be economically crippling.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rac (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man, but under socialism it's the other way around. Go move to Cuba or any of yhe few other places clinging to leftist demagoguery as their organizing principle.
So capitalism and socialism are the only choices? No shades in between? No other options? Nothing else to try among the nearly infinite combinations and permutations which lie on the line between them? Not to mention, is there nothing on another axis entirely that might be better for all of us? Like perhaps re-imagining our lives and creating a system that doesn't rely on limitless growth on limited resources like some kind of cancer?
Grow the fuck up and go acquire some subtlety and imagination.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rack (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't like your job? Get a better job.
Hence his support for getting a better job, one with more workers' rights and better pay.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rack (Score:4, Funny)
How about you go find another job if +50% of your coworkers vote to unionize then? I mean, you shouldnt take the fact that you dont like unions out on your coworkers, right?
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rack (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Not that I'm defending the aptly named OP, but 50%+1 is a majority, not a "democracy", at least in the modern sense. A democracy requires a certain common set of principles or "values" that are accepted by everyone and cannot be overturned by a simple 50%+1, and only then the 50% + 1 begins to apply.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rac (Score:4, Insightful)
"A democracy requires a certain common set of principles or "values" that are accepted by everyone"
The only common values required for democracy are believing that all have a right to have a voice, and being willing to abide by the outcome of a vote. Which is why we don't have it here, Republicans believe in neither of those things.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you're describing ain't a democracy, but "The Lord of the Flies".
Re: (Score:1)
No, what you're describing ain't a democracy, but "The Lord of the Flies".
You cannot have it both ways: You can't both believe that most people will do okay when left to look out for themselves and decide what to do without interference, and also believe that the people will vote you off of the island if given the chance. You're going to have to pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're basically believing that that if 50%+1 decide to kill the rest in a free vote, then it makes it a "democracy" and not mass murder? Methinks you haven't thought this through.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I added the word "conditions". Unlike actual slavery where you work for your owner, you can work like a slave for employer A, employer B, or employer C. But since none own you, your health care isn't their problem, your death or disability won't inconvenience them much.
You want to participate in an adult conversation? (Score:2)
Then do yourself a service, buy a dictionary, go to letter "F", "Figure" and check out the meaning of the "figure of speech" idiom. You'll save the rest of us a lot of time that we otherwise have to spend explaining to you really simple things, like "slavery" in this case being a figure of speech that describes the undermining of basic human rights by inequality, which is an often observed phenomenon in "purely capitalist" societies, such as those in the Western world in the middle of the 19th century.
Re: (Score:3)
Slavery has been illegal in the US for over 150 years
That simply isn't true. The full text of the 13th amendment, emphasis added:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rack (Score:2)
"Slavery has been illegal in the US for over 150 years"
Found the guy who hasn't actually read the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments.
You're right that a "wage slave" isn't literally a slave. But in the end that person is being exploited for labor, and their needs are not being met, so frankly they are effectively a slave by the portion of their unmet need. Not only did we not actually abolish slavery in America, only requiring conviction before enslavement, but we have relegated the majority to a state of
Re: (Score:2)
You've made a shotgun argument here. Let's take a look at it, shall we?
Not only did we not actually abolish slavery in America...
We truly did. You are blinded by equating other things to slavery.
only requiring conviction before enslavement
Ah. Prison labor. You get partial credit, in that prison labor has very few of the protections labor elsewhere has. But even so, inmates are free to refuse without submitting to further corporal punishment or the threat of execution. Not so of slaves.
...they are effectively a slave...
Are they free to look for work elsewhere? Are they free to start their own business, and rise or fall with the succe
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. Prison labor. You get partial credit
So you're 100% behind being able to enslave anyone that you can convict in a corrupt court with corrupt cops telling lies about them? Tell us more about how you support slavery.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And forced arbitration is just fine?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The real issue is government simply needs to protect the domestic labor from forces like illegal immigration and set a tariff schedule that to neutralize any advantages in labor cost savings abroad the final price of goods.
Around 30% of revenue from S&P 500 companies comes from outside of the US. That is about $3.5 trillion in revenue, or 15% of our GDP. We also import about $3.2 trillion in goods each year. If we started putting up tariffs to make foreign good artificially more expensive, we would both massively increase inflation here in the US and decrease revenue of US companies when foreign countries match our tariffs. It is a terribly horrible idea.
We need to create better safety nets for people whose skills struggl
Re: (Score:3)
We also need to increase the level of legal immigration so we can keep cost of living lower and mitigate the loss of the boomer generation from the labor market.
And exactly how much trust can you put in a Government entity that somehow manages to execute the exact opposite of what you're claiming we need?
"Legal" immigration has turned into a fucking dream for those being paid to cross borders.
Re:Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion racke (Score:4, Insightful)
Your .sig is refreshingly honest.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rack (Score:3)
The system of rent seeking and ownership does what you describe, taking money from those who actually work and handing it to people whose name is on a deed, or a corporate charter.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because I have to spell it out: their name is on the deed because they paid to own the property. They paid for the building. They own it. They worked for it in advance.
You are making several unwarranted assumptions:
* That because their name is on the deed, they paid to own the property. Someone else could have paid.
* That because their name is on the deed, their ownership is legitimate.
* That even in the case they paid for something, they worked to get it.
* That even in the case they worked to get something, that others didn't work more than they did, e.g. in the case of employees who did the actual work while they profited.
Re:Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion racke (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unions are nothing but collusion in the labor market place. You can't support anti-trust and turn around and support big labor." /facepalm
Yes, unions are collusion in the labor market, in that groups of employees get together to represent themselves collectively as an entity.
Which seems pretty reasonable since corporations are just groups of capitalists (shareholders) that are incorporated to do business collectively as an entity.
Unions just level the field.
It seems pretty fucking bizarre to claim that its ok for SH to incorporate a collective group to do business using their collective assets and stability that comes from being a large corporate entity that would be impossible for an individual... and then turn around and say unions shouldn't exist. They're the same fucking thing. Both end up being effectively large corporations trading goods and services.
"The real issue is government simply needs to protect the domestic labor from forces like illegal immigration "
That's only a "real" issue in your fantasies. Illegal immigration is a genuine border/security issue.
But illegal immigration is not really a real problem for the labor market whatsoever. They make up like 3% of the labor market, nearly all of it unskilled work, particularly farm work, and most illegal immigrants are working jobs american's don't want. And if you managed to deport them all the shocks to the labor market would actually be profoundly negative -- prices of the goods/services they provide would shoot up and availability would drop.
As with many people, you also appear to be conflating legal immigration (H1B visa and various other programs) with illegal immigration.
"and set a tariff schedule that to neutralize any advantages in labor cost savings abroad the final price of goods."
Tariffs are effectively a regressive tax on the low income and middle classes. They don't "punish companies" for imports. Companies inevitably just pass the cost of tarrifs onto consumers.
Longer term tariffs can artificially create an environment where certain goods can be competitively produced locally -- creating local jobs, but the entire time its a structurally inefficient market propped up by the tariffs and consumers will pay higher prices for the goods than they would otherwise regardless of where the goods are produced. Tariffs and protectionism in general may make sense in some cases where it is in a national security / interest in having certain industries local in the event of global war and trade issues -- where you effectively choose to deliberately have the taxpayer pay extra to subsidize the local industry just so that it exists locally if you ever need it locally. This can makes sense for the production of war materiel, and to ensure some local production levels of some key staples of food and energy.
To repeat myself, tariffs make sense when its worth it to the nation to deliberately prop up an inefficient market place at taxpayer expense to have local production for national security reasons -- that's IT.
By and large tariffs as you seem to envision working them are counter productive and harm precisely the people you think you are trying to help.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unions just level the field.
They certainly do initially but, if membership of the union is compelled, then union leaders no longer have to pay much attention to their members and start to get a lot more interested in serving themselves rather than the membership. We need unions but we also need membership in a union to be voluntary because that's the only way to keep union leaders squarely focused on providing value for money to all their members.
Re: (Score:2)
"They certainly do initially but, if membership of the union is compelled, then union leaders no longer have to pay much attention to their members and start to get a lot more interested in serving themselves rather than the membership"
Sure, but the tricky bit is that this lets the corporation actively play employees against their own union; weakening the union which is to the ultimate benefit of the corporation. That's not really the win you think it is.
"We need unions but we also need membership in a union to be voluntary because that's the only way to keep union leaders squarely focused on providing value for money to all their members."
Too bad that doesn't work for government. Or do you think if people could simply stop paying taxes (but continue working and living in the country) if they didn't feel they were getting good value from the government that everything would work out ok? And politicians would then be squarely focused on providing value for money to all citizens? :)
Clearly that wouldn't work, and it won't work for unions for similar reasons really. You'll need to find a another way to ensure leadership is focused on its members.
I'd counter that a better solution than dropping compelled membership in "the union" is simply compelled membership in "a union". Then if the union representing labor at your company is not doing its job, you and your fellow employees at a company can collectively join another one, or form a new one that does represent you.
And if you think about it, that's pretty analogous to political parties and voters switching our their representatives. Its far from a perfect system, but if you can find a better one I'm actively listening.
EU and UK beg to Differ (Score:2)
Sure, but the tricky bit is that this lets the corporation actively play employees against their own union; weakening the union which is to the ultimate benefit of the corporation.
That's absolutely not true. I would say that unions in the UK and EU are far, far stronger than those in the US and Canada and yet they operate under human rights laws that forbid compelled membership of unions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the dumbest thing I've seen in this thread, and that's saying something.
I don't even know where to begin and after seeing your post I seriously doubt you're capable of understanding anything I said anyway.
Did you hurt yourself? Do you need help? I can think of nothing other than a medical emergency that could provoke such an absurd post!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, err...let's think about that.
Now...whom exactly, were doing just those jobs you listed, BEFORE the flood of illegal migrants hit the US?
Yep....Americans.
We export the illegals....and kick the folks off the dole, they'll need to get jobs again.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rac (Score:2)
And those Americans surely demanded more for their labor. The illegal immigrants are in a far more precarious situation and so won't make as many demands.
It's not about what work Americans want or don't want, it's about how shareholder value not rising as quickly because of labor costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal immigration is trivial to solve: Aggressively pursue and prosecute anyone who hires illegal immigrants. The 'problem' will very quickly solve itself.
When you figure out why that won't happen, you'll learn something very important, and very shameful, about our economy.
Your .sig is hilariously ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
That you chose to post this AC suggests that you knew your post was stupid. Stupid enough even that you didn't want your username attached to it.
Maybe next time, just don't post.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rack (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people mod everything they disagree with as troll. It's the biggest issue with Slashdot moderation, and internet discourse in general.
Re: (Score:3)
It was a legitimate argument made in good faith.
No, it wasn't. It's the same tired old bullshit RWNJ trots out anytime he sees the word "union". It's complete nonsense and he knows it.
Freedom of Association (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if the right to collective bargaining were also paired with an inviolable right to refrain from joining or paying into a collective bargaining unit, then I'd have no objections.
That is the case in much of the world. For example, in the Eu and UK the human right to freedom of association means that you also have the freedom not to associate. It is only in countries like Canada where despite a fundamental right to freedom of association being in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the courts have decided that it is ok to compel people to be members of a union against their will.
Unions are absolutely necessary to prevent employers from abusing their position of authority. However, to ensure balance union membership must be voluntary because if membership is compelled then the union no longer has to care about serving its members and giving them value for money. Then all that happens is you replace exploitation by the employer with exploitation by the union leadership which is admittedly not as bad but it is still exploiting people.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in Canada are people forced to work in an union shop? Probably the same place where people are forced to live in a particular city. Freedom of Association means you can leave a job you don't like, whether it is the management or the workers you don't like.
Not Even Freedom of Conscience (Score:2)
Freedom of Association means you can leave a job you don't like
No, freedom of association means that I can associate as I choose. I would like to associate with my employer and colleagues in a job that I like but not associate with a union that I almost always disagree with, that has ignored every request I have ever made of it and that charges union dues in an unequal and unfair manner. The _really_ stupid thing is, is that if I were a member of a religion that had rules against
Re: (Score:2)
Rights are not absolute. Freedom of association also means the union members have a right not to associate with none union members. It sounds like you consider your right not to associate more important then their right not to associate.
You do have democratic rights, you can lobby and vote for better union leadership or to get rid of the union. You can also use the courts to argue that your rights are more important then others rights. If you are unlucky enough that your visa limits your work, you still hav
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is one of right and wrong, not of legality.
Congress passed laws making it legal.
Lawsuits are about violations of LAW, not about right and wrong of the laws. Even the Supreme Court does not get to rule on whether or not a law is right or wrong -only whether it is legal as written and enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
The Supreme Court often rules that a law as written is wrong. Consider the 1st amendment, plainly says Congress shall make no law restricting speech, Supreme Court changed it to Congress shall make no law restricting political speech, thus making all kinds of speech restrictions that Congress has passed Constitutional by labeling some speech as commercial, a national security risk, etc even though it is speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is all fine as long as you are willing to also negotiate your own raises and working conditions. If you aren't paying your dues to the union you really shouldn't expect to be getting the rewards of their negotiations.
Once you are in the union though you only need 50%+1 of the members to side with you and replace the union leadership if you don't think they are working in your best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some states where you don't have to join the union even if the shop organizes.
Re: Big labor is a state-sanctioned extortion rack (Score:2)
Understand that no single human has ever accomplished anything of note. Why do you think that is?
if we had better labor laws like the EU then less (Score:2)
if we had better labor laws like the EU then less need for unions.
In the USA we let Amazon drivers be controlled by amazon but be paid by an franchise.
And that franchise has to cover alot of the costs but has no real control over stuff. It's like you are buying an job but the stuff you buy is locked to Amazon
Re:if we had better labor laws like the EU then le (Score:5, Insightful)
if we had better labor laws like the EU then less need for unions.
The EU has more unions, and more powerful unions, than the US.
In fact, you might argue that EU has better labor laws because it has more powerful unions.
Re: (Score:3)
They also do it a bit different as many of the unions are sectoral unions
But most European countries, and some other rich countries outside the US, have figured out an ingenious way around this. Unions there bargain not at the company level but at the sector level — negotiating for all workers in an entire industry rather than just one company or workplace.
In France, for example, an employers' federation representing restaurants will negotiate with a union representing restaurant workers. They reach a
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has more unions, and more powerful unions, than the US.
Yes, but in the EU you cannot be compelled to join a union. Here in Canada, you can be compelled to join and the result is that unions don't have to listen to members and are despised by many of us who are forced to join them. The result is weaker unions that are more interested in serving their leaders than their members.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure which union you are referring to but to my knowledge union leadership is voted on by the union members. If you don't like the leadership vote them out.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why the right to not be a union member is important - it forces the leaders to either listen to and rep
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I wonder if US schools teach anything at all.
Re:if we had better labor laws like the EU then le (Score:4, Insightful)
Blame the teachers' unions.
Re: if we had better labor laws like the EU then l (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US as without it, it would be out of money a long time ago and overrun by Nazis and/or Soviets.
What Soviets? What Nazis? The EU came into existence in 1993, after the fall of the Soviet Union and a long time after the defeat of the Axis.
What you are claiming is literally impossible, unless you believe that Iron Sky was a documentary
Re: (Score:1)
The EU existed before the current name change. Germany has always had a knack for complete European domination, Victor Hugo described it in the late 1800s and Keynes and other economists basically promoted it and many treaties were established between the world wars in a failed attempt to establish peace after WW1.
If you think the EU just magicked into existence in 1993, you are sorely mistaken. Without the US/UK support ultimately with the goal for European peace in WW2 (listen to speeches of UK and US pol
Re: (Score:2)
A generic term. Kinda like how in the US, a "Kleenex" is really today broadly the term used for a tissue. A Xerox machine is pretty much any copier...etc.
Kinda thought that would be obvious from the OP.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US....the EU is pretty much a synonym or Europe
lolwtf
Kinda thought that would be obvious from the OP.
Given he's a raging moron... no not obvious!
If Congress created it, it's not unconstitutional (Score:2)
Sec. 3. (a) The National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter called the âoeBoardâ) created by this Act prior to its amendment by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 , is continued as an agency of the United States, except that the Board shall consist of five instead of three members, appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Of the two additional members so provided for, one shall be appointed for a term of five years and the other for a term of two years. Their successors, and the successors of the other members, shall be appointed for terms of five years each, excepting that any individual chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the member whom he shall succeed. The President shall designate one member to serve as Chairman of the Board. Any member of the Board may be removed by the President, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.
Not sure where Amazon's going with this other than whine about being held accountable for the people who keep getting injured or die in their warehouses from unsafe work conditions or overwork.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly they have too much money in the bank to spend on frivolous lawsuits. Sounds like they need to pay a lot more taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where Amazon's going with this other than whine about being held accountable for the people who keep getting injured or die in their warehouses from unsafe work conditions or overwork.
Given Amazon's warehouse abuse history, you act as if this action isn't a financially justified move by Amazon.
Given current litigation costs/profit motive, it's quite sad that it is more than justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 9. Inferior Federal Courts [congress.gov]. I wish Amazon and others luck. But based upon our inability to free ourselves from the tax court, I doubt they'll make much headway.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making the mistake and thinking the right wing and corporations operates in good faith.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Just because FDR threatened to pack and therefore cowed the court into upholding his anti-american bullshit does not mean the present court will be so cowed. Its high time to revisit some of the wrenched new-deal era decisions that have been allowed to stand way to long.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because FDR threatened to pack and therefore cowed the court into upholding his anti-american bullshit
And much of the far-right in this country thinks the 13th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act are anti-American bullshit too...
Re: (Score:1)
It's way past time. If they won't uphold the Constitution then the system is busted. If the decisions go in some Communist/Fascist direction, then the time has come for at least one state to leave the Union and that's my home state of Texas.
Texas is leading the country in going in a fascist direction. If Texas leaves the union, it would be because they want to commit to full fascism without that pesky constitution in the way.
https://www.texastribune.org/2... [texastribune.org]
https://drmistyhook.medium.com... [medium.com]
https://www.texasmonthly.com/n... [texasmonthly.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Texas isn't known for being a state full of queers who tolerate faggot-related-shit well,
tells me everything I need to know.
Re: (Score:1)
tells me everything I need to know.
Tells me you're probably a butthurt faggot, but I repeat myself.
Re:If Congress created it, it's not unconstitution (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can get Texas to leave, could you ask them to take Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama with them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Congress created it, it's not unconstitutional
That isn't how it works at all.
this isn't just about unions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
you could negotiate yourself a better salary than your peers even if you underproduce, but are better at negotiation .. so yeah, pardon me for not drawing a straight line from the freedom to negotiate salary to a superior meritocracy
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, in a union shop, you cannot negotiate yourself a better salary than your peers even if you overproduce. That, to me, is a fail.)
The only way you validate "overproduce" is if you're an owner of the company. Otherwise, why are you even bothering to overproduce for someone else who won't think twice about firing you, because bottom line. That to me, is the real fail here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wanna bet? My dad worked in a union dominated industry (Retail Clerks in Southern California) and never worked for mere union scale. You can always negotiate, and if you're good enough at what you do, you can get a better pay rate than the rank and file.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes,
The same exact thing came up during Microsoft / Activision discussions. The enforcement agency (FTC) decided to hold the internal court date at pretty much after the merger deal deadline. One may dislike Microsoft or not, but can easily see the intentional delayed justice is not justice at all.
(For those who are interested, what happened was Microsoft got approval from pretty much in every other country, and then forced FTC's hand by saying "we will close over", which finally got them a Federal, not int
Right to a jury trial? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't these the SAME COMPANIES that make you sign away YOUR right to a jury trial in favor of arbitration?
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't these the SAME COMPANIES that make you sign away YOUR right to a jury trial in favor of arbitration?
Yeah, but that's just for the plebs. These actions are likely for the legal threats they haven't been able to completely dismiss with a EULA no one reads.
Re:Right to a jury trial? (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the point of a labor board was to mitigate the inherently asymmetric relationship between a single worker and a large company. The courts are a very expensive way to deal with a labor issue. Basically the payout has to be in the 6-figures level just to get a lawyer to even think about taking your case. Large companies have the ability to bankrupt anyone with legal fees for more minor offenses. If such a board ceases to exist it will embolden many more abuses to escalate.
Re: (Score:2)
Sign?! How old school. Just opening a box, or visiting a website can result in you vicariously getting entangled in the TOS. Long gone are the days where you had the right to refuse a contract while just going about your day.
Amazon is a predatory emplyer, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
...they are right.
The US has dozens of agencies that write regulations, and enforce those regulations as if they were law. It's impossible to know just how many regulations apply to you, as an individual, but it's a safe bet that there are hundreds, and probably thousands of them.
The enforcement is done by the agencies themselves, who are hardly neutral in the matter. They have internal goals to reach, and protesting their actions will irritate them. The IRS is the best known example of this: I had a fr
Re:Amazon is a predatory emplyer, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
tl;dr There is a lot of bathwater, but also a lot of babies. Companies want to throw it all out.
So if someone has the authority to do something, you want to say they aren't allowed to delegate some of that work? This isn't about the number of regulations. It's because Congress dealing with this directly is impossible and that's exactly what large corporations want - more incompetence so there are fewer rules. They don't want the system to work at all. The regulations themselves ARE as if they were law. In the sense that an authority that has the ability to make laws gave them part of that authority. And at any time Congress can vote to overrule or curb that ability.
You gave an example of corruption in an agency that probably should have been handled by federal law enforcement. It's an illegal abuse of power by individuals and it has little to do with the organizational structure.
If the companies wanted to argue that the agencies just shouldn't be the enforcement or judicial branch, I wouldn't disagree. But they want to claim the entire organizations are unconstitutional. They only need the traditional separation of powers that the main legislative branch has from judicial and executive. I think it makes sense that subject matter experts in the organizations should be helping to make determinations on whether a rule is violated. It would even help provide documentation in court where they would otherwise have to hire subject matter experts only after a guess at a violation is discovered. Enforcement and adjudication can be shifted elsewhere without ruining that.
Union busting corp joins union busting lawsuit (Score:1)
In other news, water is still extremely wet.
Yes. But. Both sides suck (Score:3)
This is what happens when you make corporations into human-like legal entities with human rights. So that's error 1.
Error 2 is having the NLRB operate the way it does. If anyone of you have ever had to deal with union rules, complaints, right, organizing, and hard core pro-union staff you know what a pita hostile situation unions create. They do it because it makes conflict is required to make union leaders money and gain power even if it comes at the expense of the members. So they cry every little thing to the NLRB but the corporate response is to do the absolute bare minimum legally required.
Error 3 is corporations not treating employees well enough that so the employees don't feel the need for a union in the first place. Unions, which suck, are the unwanted result of corporations mistreating staff. Staff then feel they have no choice but to jump from the frying pan into the fire and join/create a local union.
It's all a big fucking ugly mess that didn't have to be this way. Companies should treat people better. Unions should actually help their members. Or better yet staff shouldn't feel the need to join at all. Dumbness all around.
And yes, I have operated under union rules on both sides of the table. Just trying to get some work done in a mutually acceptable way and go home early but everyone is all fucking hostile for no reason just because it's this artificial "union vs management" bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with unions come when unions get to the size of these large corporations and use the same bad tactics. But employees are individually too small to have a meaningful impact on labor negotiation beyond "take it or leave it." The power imbalance needs to be fairly close to even for things to get anywhere.
Aldi Nord (Score:2)
Bold strategy, Cotton (Score:2)
If this is so then... (Score:1)
War on the poor (Score:1)
Talking about unconstitutional. (Score:2)
scotus agrees (Score:2)
Scotus has ruled recently in cases similar to this. Amazon has a good chance of winning.
Scotus better watch it, though, because these administrative judges are also who sends illegal immigrants back.